Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Abortion, FGM and porn: abuse and choices

Last
night, in a quite extraordinary performance, Texas senator Wendy Davis stayed
on her feet for 10-plus hours to effectively break a plan by that state to
close most of its clinics that offered abortion (amongst other services) to
women.

She
couldn’t take a break to pee or to eat; she had to keep speaking – and staying
on topic. This was no opportunity to quote Shakespeare at length or read her
favourite poems.

It
was an extraordinary feat, and one that should be applauded anywhere and by
anyone who cares about women’s rights.

Actually,
you’d expect it to be applauded by those who care about a small state too – but
that’s one of the oddities of the times we live in: many of those who say that
they believe in the smallest state possible make an exception when it comes to
women’s reproductive systems. And, of course, anything to do with LGBT people.

The
ideology of such people is remarkably selective.

Mind,
as of 2012 – perhaps lawmakers have subsequently seen sense – oral sex was
illegal in Indiana.

In
Washington DC, anything other than the missionary position is strictly
verboten.

Sex
toys are illegal in Alabama.

In
San Antonio, Texas, it’s illegal to flirt.

It
is illegal in Bakersfield, California, to have sex with Satan without a condom.
If only I’d known.

And
so on. There are plenty more where those came from.

So
when you look at those examples of controlling, interfering laws, perhaps it’s
hardly a shock that some states are targeting a women’s right to control her
own body. And indeed, there are a few that are now prosecuting women for having
a miscarriage.

But
there really are times when the state should butt in (so to speak).

A
report from the NSPCC a couple of days ago revealed the scale of the problem of
female genital mutilation (FGM) in the UK.

Contrary
to popular belief, it’s not a practise that’s exclusive to any one religion,
but crosses the divide. In Somalia, for instance, it’s to be found in
Christian, Islamic and animist communities. In other words, it’s cultural in
the widest sense of the word, not simply in terms of a single religion.

Personally,
I don’t buy into the argument that such things can simply be out down to ‘the
patriarchy’. If a woman, who has suffered FGM herself, and knows therefore what
it does, still decides to inflict it on her own daughter, then the prime
responsibility is hers.

If
it hasn’t happened to the mother, there’s even less of a mitigating argument.

And
that is particularly true for women living in the West. If it isn’t, that means
we have ghettos where nothing breaks in. But that’s a different problem.

Personally,
I don’t think that any parent should be able to simply lop of a child’s
foreskin either. If your god wants it as a mark of faithfulness, then wait
until the child is a man and can make his own decision.

Anything
else is simply about parental faith and is a symbolic version of child sacrifice.

These
things are irreversible. There is rarely ever a sound medical reason for male
genital mutilation and while it doesn’t have the same medical ramifications as
FGM, there is evidence that it reduces male pleasure.

And
here we hit the nub.

It’s
that thorny old issue of sex – and pleasure.

In
particular, in most of this, it’s about controlling female sexual pleasure –
and ‘urges’. In the 21st century, it seems that some people don’t even
comprehend that hormones create desire – not genitalia.

Mind,
it’s worth remembering that FGM continued in the US well into the 20th century
in order to control the dread evil of masturbation. So we should abe wary of
thinking ourselves so far advanced of some other societies.

But
it’s not far removed form the obsessive desire to ban pornography either. And
all the ranting and raving, and all the claims of ‘cultural violence’, do not
change one simple fact: not a single, solitary piece of serious research has
ever been found a link between porn and violence – predominantly by men
toward women and children.

And
people have been looking for that link for years – just as they have been
looking to prove a link between violent entertainment and violence in real
life.

Yet
now, in the UK, we have legislators who are seriously coming up with
propositions that would make it illegal to mention legal activities in print.
Or even a private email. No matter how consensual. Fisting is just one. Bondage
is another. I could potentially be breaking the law by evening mentioning those
unmentionables.

To
read more on this, follow lawyer Myles Jackman on Twitter and his blog. His most recent posts should be mandatory reading for any would-be censor.

Yet
research done with serial sex offenders does tend to suggest a link between a
sexually repressive background, with no outlets, and offending.

Statistics
from the UN tend to suggest that the more liberal a country is in its attitudes
to sex, sexuality and the sex industry, the lower the rates of rape and sexual
abuse.

These
are notoriously difficult stats, since cultures in countries such as Saudi
Arabia make it very difficult, if not pretty much impossible, for a woman to
report rape – not least since she stands the risk of being punished herself.

And
also because, in places such as Scandinavia, not only is the opposite true, but
the bar for what constitutes rape is set much lower.

Much
of the point here is that the West should not be complacent – but nor should it
fall into a trap of intellectual sloppiness, and start adopting what are, in
essence, the attitudes of reaction.

If
there are cases of FGM, we should deal with them with the full force of the
law. We should not run around, flapping our hands in the air and worrying about
upsetting someone’s cultural sensitivities. It’s abuse, pure and simple.

But
neither we should not fall for the argument of social conservatives worldwide
that sexual pleasure is bad and should be stamped out, whether in terms of a
woman’s right for her clitoris to remain intact or for men and/or women to make
and view pornography that is consensually produced.

In
the case of the former, as stated, it’s a straightforward issue of abuse. In
the latter, we’re back to some people trying to control the behaviour of others
on the basis of, at best, an absence of substance.

If
we don’t think it acceptable for the judicial system to bang someone up because
they ‘think’ they might have done something, we shouldn’t fall into a trap of
calling for a ban on something just because we ‘think’ it’s bad.

If
I don’t buy into the easy idea of blaming ‘the patriarchy’ for everything, I
equally do not buy into promoting a culture of victimhood among women. And to
constantly assert that women do things only because men tell them is actually
the most patronising (matronising?) thing imaginable.

It
also pongs of an elitism: that ‘I know better than you and I know the best for
you’.

And
ultimately, people who might see themselves as progressive actually add to the
argument of social conservatives who would really like to turn back the tide
and keep women ‘in their place’, as homemakers and breeding machines.

Be
very aware of whose side you’re on. It can – or it should – be rather telling.

But
let’s wind up by returning to abortion.

If
a woman can be coerced into making porn, and if that’s the prime reason for
banning it (since there is no evidence of it causing harm) then a woman can be
coerced into having an abortion, so perhaps that should be banned too?

The
truth is, we should stop treating women as malleable beings who cannot be
trusted to make the ‘correct’ decision for themselves and are always and
utterly the victims of men – unless they’re in that self-selecting band of the
truly ‘liberated’.

If
a woman is capable of making such as major a choice as abortion – and research
shows that women do not take such a choice lightly – than women are capable of
deciding whether to watch or appear in or produce or write pornographic material.
And women are capable of making a choice not to have their daughters (or their
sons) mutilated.

Either
women as a whole are capable of taking responsibility for their reproductive
and sexual lives – or they are not.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

London-based journalist, writer, photographer and artist, with one Other Half and three cats.
This blog is about all sorts of things, but mostly reviews. My interests include comics and opera (and even comic opera), cats, tattoos and art.
100% personal. Non-PC. No 'party line'.
You can see some of my photography at http://amandakendalart.tumblr.com
Redbubble store now at www.redbubble.com/people/amandakendal